2018 Wisconsin Badgers football

[paul253]

Again, all I can say is that the idea that you can't stay interested in conference titles, bowl games, and the postseason when you're out of the national title hunt is a choice that some fans make

 

That’s not the argument. Nobody is saying they aren’t interested in conference titles or bowl games if you’re not in the title hunt. What we are saying is that they aren’t relevant to the national title hunt so the importance is lower.

 

Because I still care a lot about the Rose Bowl and other big bowl games, just like I did before there was a national title game at all

 

Sorry I meant why do you say Ohio St and Oklahoma don’t have an argument about making the playoffs.

 

Also, check out what Vegas would have UCF in for point spreads. Granted the whole point is to "give everyone a chance" but they would be considered to have no shot if they played these top teams

 

Vegas said Michigan was favored to beat Ohio St and look what happened. Again that’s why you actually play the games instead of having a committee figuring out who best teams are.

 

Winning the Big Ten title and going to the Rose Bowl, with no national title implications, is no less of an accomplishment now than it was in 1994 IMO

 

It not less of an accomplishment but it could be less significant in terms of relevance. If winning the conference championship guaranteed you a shot a that national championship then you cannot argue the significance is the same as if it doesn’t. It’s mike every other sport where winning your division guarantees a spot in the playoff. If winning the division didn’t come with the guarantee the significance is less even if the actual accomplishment is the same.

 

That's what it comes down to, on both counts: teams like UCF could only be expected to beat legit title contenders about 33% of the time, and that's only when they play weak ones, like Boise State against TCU

 

Huh? TCU was the 4th ranked team in the country that year. Last year UCF beat Auburn, who was ranked 7th.

 

And if we determine would gets in based on Vegas odds why even play the game?

[superfly]

If nothing else, paul's idea would create more buzz and keep fans interested longer. I tuned out once I knew the Badgers weren't that good and had no shot. If they would have still had a shot at the Big 10 title and a shot at the playoff I would have watched the games until they were out of it. I prefer an 8 team playoff. Otherwise it feels like its the same 4 teams every year(I realize it's slightly different). That's boring.

 

What kept fans interested before there was any national title game at all? They're going to continue to preserve the bowl system while trying to crown a true, deserving national champion based on regular season results, as they should. Letting 8 teams in the playoffs gives undeserving teams a shot.

 

Let's just name it the "SEC playoffs" and cut to the chase. Who are you to decide that a #5 team is "deserving" of a shot? It's not a matter of undeserving or deserving teams, what is the point of having 2 or 3 SEC teams every year with one bookmarked for Alabama and a token B1G/etc team? Dump the garbage cash cow bowl games that nobody gives a rip about and give us some real football games.

 

Did the Packers "deserve" a spot in the 2010-2011 playoffs? After all, they barrrrrrely snuck in. Your argument has no merit IMO and it's why I watched precisely 0 minutes of NCAA Football this year. It's worse than the NBA where you have known before the season even started for years that it was Golden State v Cleveland and the rest were just putting time in and cashing their checks.

 

The Rose Bowl is cool and a great honor, but maybe you'd prefer the Badgers just hang some Rose Bowl Participant banners up rather than some national playoff/title banners. What do I know?

[owbc]

Competitive imbalance is the biggest problem and the system is currently set up to perpetuate it. There are no checks and balances. Unlike NFL teams, Alabama can play an easy schedule every year, and it is in their best interest to do so. There are few punishments for unethical activities. There's no revenue sharing or anything, no way to prevent the money and recruits from pouring in to the top schools--and the gap between the haves and the have-nots has only widened.

 

Given the unfixable things (rosters, conference alignment, all the bowls), the best thing they can do is make the path harder for teams like Alabama and Clemson. Let the randomness and chaos of football play out. Adding a round to the playoffs would help. Fixing the conference championships would help (forget the stupid divisions, just make the top two teams in the CFP rankings from each conference play each other). Make it harder to get away with an easy non-conference schedule. Neutral sites should be banned except for bowl games.

[paul253]

Right now the NCAA is not an even playing field. The SEC and ACC play 8 conference games whereas the Big 10 Big 12 and Pac 12 play 9. That’s a huge advantage for the SEC and ACC. Not surprisingly those are the two conferences who have never missed the playoffs. Also, some conferences play FCS teams while others don’t. As OWNC said the way you fix these imbalances is by making them play each other. You don’t just decide who are the best teams on paper and only they get a chance at the national championship.

[tmwiese55]

Since you didn't look it up. UCF vs Bama would be 28.5 spread and vs OU would be 14.5. Can't find the ND now, but like I said I'd say that probably is between 7-10 so the only reasonable chance they'd have. And note ND would be would be dogs to OSU, Michigan, and Georgia. Clemson is like 12ish vs ND, so they'd be over 20 vs UCF. UCF isn't even in the top 10 Vegas rankings. It's one thing to win as a 4-5 pt dog like OSU did at home vs Mich. Winning has 20 pt dogs almost never happens. Like I said at the beginning, I know the whole point is 'give everyone a chance' so this doesn't change that. I'm just pointing it out that the best experts don't think they're even on the same level.

[stoutdude04]

Not that it means anything one way or the other, but Auburn was 10.5 point favorite over UCF last year.

 

I imagine part of the massive spread is that UCF lost their starting QB. It would still be big, but probably not as big. And no, I don't think this years UCF team would win against either of the top 4.

[paul253]

I'm just pointing it out that the best experts don't think they're even on the same level.

 

With all due respect I could not care less what the Vegas line is. That should have zero determination as to whether or not UCF should get a chance?

 

Do I think they could beat any of the top 4? I think they COULD beat Notre Dame and I think they COULD beat Oklahoma. But why should we have to sit here are argue whether or not think team A could beat team B when Team A could just play team B and then we’d know.

[coolhandluke121]

Right now the NCAA is not an even playing field. The SEC and ACC play 8 conference games whereas the Big 10 Big 12 and Pac 12 play 9. That’s a huge advantage for the SEC and ACC. Not surprisingly those are the two conferences who have never missed the playoffs. Also, some conferences play FCS teams while others don’t. As OWNC said the way you fix these imbalances is by making them play each other. You don’t just decide who are the best teams on paper and only they get a chance at the national championship.

 

The SEC has proven itself time and again when it plays other conferences in bowl games and head-to-head competition. There are competitive imbalances due to recruiting and funding, but that's a separate issue. The bowl system is fine. The only change it needed was to make sure the two best teams get to play for the national title so you don't have situations like when Nebraska and Michigan split the title without playing each other. But since you can't always determine who the two best teams are, you expand it to 4 and play a mini-tournament. 4 is enough because it's so unlikely that a 5th team can make a case for being one of the top 2 performers in the regular season.

 

Bottom line, the regular season already is a do-or-die tournament, and you just water it down by letting more and more teams play for the title. College football isn't meant to have a lot of games, and therefore each game is critically important. I strongly prefer a regular season that matters so much, and I think they should get rid of some of these stupid extra games they keep playing. It used to be 11 games for everyone, and then maybe a bowl game. D-II and D-III play what, 13 games at most if they advance to the finals? And I don't think they start playing before the semester starts and keep playing after it ends. These are college athletes who will almost all do something besides football for the rest of their lives. There's no need to keep adding games for fans who seem to think that the players exist for their entertainment pleasure.

[tmwiese55]

I'm just pointing it out that the best experts don't think they're even on the same level.

 

With all due respect I could not care less what the Vegas line is. That should have zero determination as to whether or not UCF should get a chance?

 

Do I think they could beat any of the top 4? I think they COULD beat Notre Dame and I think they COULD beat Oklahoma. But why should we have to sit here are argue whether or not think team A could beat team B when Team A could just play team B and then we’d know.

 

right, like I said I know the whole point is give everyone a chance so it doesn't change anything from your perspective. Just showing that the committee isn't stupid to not think they deserve to be top 4 (or that they're on a different tier, like the MAC or FCS is as well). The issue they're dealing with is when to stop. In their eyes (and supported by the best experts in Vegas) is that this team has no chance to win it all. Again, I think ND is overrated so that would be their chance to make noise, so not arguing that as that is a whole different discussion the BS favoritism that ND gets. The issue then becomes, well if we have to let UCF in because everyone needs an opportunity even though we think they have no chance, well then why not the MAC champ, or if ND St goes undefeated, if UCF gets in why shouldn't OSU/Mich who everyone with a brain would guess is better, well heck might as well get a 64 team tourney going, etc. That's the issue, where do you cut it off. And due to this issue yes I think the major conferences should just seperate themselves from the rest eventually.

 

And not caring what Vegas says, of course they shouldn't have a say. I'm using to show how unlikely it is for them to win. There's probably been 1-5 28 pt favorites (in non major conf vs majors games) to win a game in the last 15-20 years. One I remember was Oregon St vs USC near the tail end of USC's big run, so 2009ish but that was both major conferences? Oh, I assume App St vs Mich was above 28. Extrapolate that down to the lower spreads and it just shows their likelihood of winning, that's it. As in, the chances of a 28 pt dog winning is something like 2% so maybe we should put in a normal team that at least has a normal-ish chance of competing.

[paul253]

4 is enough because it's so unlikely that a 5th team can make a case for being one of the top 2 performers in the regular season

 

Just for arguments. In 2 of the 4 playoffs so far the “4th best team” as determined by the playoff has won it. So if the 4th best team can win its hardly out of the realm of possibility that the 5th place team can it, especially in years like this when the difference between four and five is minuscule.

 

Bottom line, the regular season already is a do-or-die tournament, and you just water it down by letting more and more teams play for the title

 

Not for everyone though. Some teams can lose and still make it while others can’t. Some teams can make it without even winning their conference, yet others can’t. It’s such an inexact science that the fairest way to settle it is on the field. I realize 8 teams is probably is big as you can go, although other divisions go bigger, which is why the solution I proposed earlier, with six conference champions and two at large teams seems like the obvious answer. It eliminates much of the inherent bias that exists when picking these teams.

[tmwiese55]

Yea i'd guess that within 5 years they expand again because this drum gets beat every year. I think a compromise could be 6 teams. Some reasons I like that would be it creates a massive incentive to get the top 2 thus still keeping the value of going undefeated as it is now. As opposed to (in theory) if Bama is undefeated going into their Auburn game they'd be better off to lose in order to skip the conf title game because they're in no matter what.

 

After that, going to 6 covers all 5 major conferences and leaves one wild card for UCF, ND, 1 loss team that looks awesome (Bama/OSU types). Yet it should still not need for very many 2 loss teams to make it. It will happen sometimes but not always, therefore keeps that regular season "every fricken loss is a big deal" mentality going. I also think if you went this route you might as well write it that the 5 major conference title game winners are automatic bids (which would default make those playoff games too, basically making it like a 10 team playoff) in order to re-emphasize the value of conf titles along with giving everyone a shot (like so many are clamoring for).

 

The alternatives to 6/8 team tourneys would be coming right out and saying let's blow the whole bowl system up once and for all. Thus making the only post season games be playoff games and make it 16 or 32 teams. Or, which this would probably take longer due to conference contracts at the moment, to make 4 mega conferences and seperate them from the rest of CFB. Each conference would have 2 divisions, who play for their title and automitc bid to the 4 team playoff (thus making it basically 8). If the big money programs wanted to get really greedy this would be the route. You'd essentially disperse the Big 12 remaining teams to the other conferences, but likely a few teams would get pushed out in the process as you'd probably cap each at 16 teams (and there is more than 64 currently I think)

[coolhandluke121]

4 is enough because it's so unlikely that a 5th team can make a case for being one of the top 2 performers in the regular season

 

Just for arguments. In 2 of the 4 playoffs so far the “4th best team” as determined by the playoff has won it. So if the 4th best team can win its hardly out of the realm of possibility that the 5th place team can it, especially in years like this when the difference between four and five is minuscule.

 

If the 4th seed wins, they would now be the #1 team anyway, so there's no issue with an inferior team winning the title. There would be with more teams though. And sure, the 5th seed could win, but they didn't earn the right to compete in the national title game. Sometimes it's possible that the 4th seed didn't either, but I'm fine with the hair-splitting between 4 and 5 under the current system, because it's almost inevitably their own fault that they're in that helpless position.

 

Bottom line, the regular season already is a do-or-die tournament, and you just water it down by letting more and more teams play for the title

 

Not for everyone though. Some teams can lose and still make it while others can’t. Some teams can make it without even winning their conference, yet others can’t. It’s such an inexact science that the fairest way to settle it is on the field. I realize 8 teams is probably is big as you can go, although other divisions go bigger, which is why the solution I proposed earlier, with six conference champions and two at large teams seems like the obvious answer. It eliminates much of the inherent bias that exists when picking these teams.

I actually think it's much more of an exact science than conference titles. There's a lot of solid analytics that goes into analyzing strength-of-schedule, margins of victory, and inter-conference games to get some idea of what an 11-1 record means in the SEC compared to a 13-0 record for UCF. I know the top programs have a huge advantage, but I see no problem with trying to make sure you get the best match-ups and don't let any pretenders in. I mean, what if Northwestern upsets OSU this year? I think it would be a joke to have them playing for a title. I really like the bowl system, which gives you a chance to get the match-ups people want and makes it a bit of a holiday, while still honoring the right of the very best teams - and only the best - to play for a title.

 

Also, not directed at you, but the idea that it's a totally biased system because Alabama or Oklahoma gets in is kind of ludicrous. I mean, they get in over OSU and Georgia and teams of that ilk - is there really a bias against those teams? Come on. There is not parity, but there is no conspiracy in the selections. I think they've done a great job picking the most deserving teams every year.

[stoutdude04]

I actually think it's much more of an exact science than conference titles. There's a lot of solid analytics that goes into analyzing strength-of-schedule, margins of victory, and inter-conference games to get some idea of what an 11-1 record means in the SEC compared to a 13-0 record for UCF. I know the top programs have a huge advantage, but I see no problem with trying to make sure you get the best match-ups and don't let any pretenders in. I mean, what if Northwestern upsets OSU this year? I think it would be a joke to have them playing for a title. I really like the bowl system, which gives you a chance to get the match-ups people want and makes it a bit of a holiday, while still honoring the right of the very best teams - and only the best - to play for a title.

 

 

I looked at the rest of the bowl schedule, and I would be shocked if many people really got a match-up they wanted. I saw like...2 intriguing match-ups.

 

I would rather watch an underdog team taking on a top team. That is way more interesting to me. That's part of why people like March Madness so much.

[tmwiese55]

Yup, that's the crux of the argument. A larger tournament is more entertaining (March Madness) for the fans but is it actually the best method of determining a champion and is it really fair to the best teams who perform all year at a high level. That's really all it comes down to from a which route one prefers to go. Obviously the $$, logistics, and political bs is a different hurdle to actually make it all feasible.

[stoutdude04]

Yup, that's the crux of the argument. A larger tournament is more entertaining (March Madness) for the fans but is it actually the best method of determining a champion and is it really fair to the best teams who perform all year at a high level. That's really all it comes down to from a which route one prefers to go. Obviously the $$, logistics, and political bs is a different hurdle to actually make it all feasible.

 

I realize that, but every other sport has the same question, doesn't it? I imagine part of that reason is because there is an imbalance of schedules, resources, etc.

 

Part of the reason why I argue for an 8 team tournament is that the bowl season is boring. It is a holiday, sure, but most of the games are just background noise. In my opinion, I think there are between 6-8 teams every year that could possibly be the best team on any given day, but they don't get the same mulligan that other teams get.

[tmwiese55]

Right, every sport does and every sport doesn't have to do it the same way and people can view it however they want and neither side is right. You value entertainment whereas someone like CHL here values actually determining the best team. That's what i'm saying, it can be argued all day and neither side is right. Personally, I've always thought its unfair blah teams like the Giants can get hot/lucky for 4 games after being crappy all year and they win the SB. Or in CBB that teams with 5 or less losses have to play a gauntlet of worse teams to re-prove they're better. That said, as a sports nerd I'm greatly entertained by it and the more games the better for me, I've just always felt it wasn't fair. Think about it this way too, how entertaining is CBB regular season that is going on right now and basically no one cares? Duke/Kentucky and similar matchups happen every year early in the year and it's just meh, who cares, the game doesn't matter. Two big time non conf teams play each other in football early in the year, it's a big deal.

[MrTPlush]

Make sure the best team wins?

 

In what world do you think the greater population of fans actually cares about that? Must be an Alabama fan. Seriously it is entertainment...not a spelling bee.

 

Not too mention if they are the best team I think they can win 3 games in a row...if not, guess they weren’t so good. Not sure how you can even know that after the joke scheduling in the NCAA. Rarely do top teams play each other, especially out of conference.

[paul253]

If the 4th seed wins, they would now be the #1 team anyway, so there's no issue with an inferior team winning the title

 

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. If they win the championship they aren’t an inferior team.

 

The point is that when the team that the committee says is the fourth best team beats two teams ahead of them en route to the national championship then clearly they weren’t the fourth best team. The committee got it wrong. It’s not their fault because it’s impossible to know for sure the exact order of who is best but they still got it wrong. So if they got that wrong whose to say they didn’t get anything else wrong? You keep saying the fifth best team didn’t earn a chance to au but just because the committee says they are the fifth best team doesn’t make them the fifth best team. It doesn’t mean they didn’t earn a spot.

 

I actually think it's much more of an exact science than conference titles. There's a lot of solid analytics that goes into analyzing strength-of-schedule, margins of victory, and inter-conference games to get some idea of what an 11-1 record means in the SEC compared to a 13-0 record for UCF.

 

How can anything be more exact then playing the game?

 

Think about it this way too, how entertaining is CBB regular season that is going on right now and basically no one cares

 

College football is a different animal though. Much fewer games to watch which in and of itself harmed more interest. Do people care about every Brewer game as much as they care about every Packer game? Not even close. But they are both still exciting in their own way.

[tmwiese55]

Make sure the best team wins?

 

In what world do you think the greater population of fans actually cares about that? Must be an Alabama fan. Seriously it is entertainment...not a spelling bee.

 

Not too mention if they are the best team I think they can win 3 games in a row...if not, guess they weren’t so good. Not sure how you can even know that after the joke scheduling in the NCAA. Rarely do top teams play each other, especially out of conference.

 

Yup, as I said most people value being entertained and that's fine.

 

For the best team talk. Think of it this simply, how often do you think the actual best college basketball team wins the tournament and how often has the actual best team won the CFB championship since the BCS started? The percents wouldn't' even be close. Could even extrapolate it out to say one of the 3-4 best teams in each and the percents still wouldn't be close. Clearly you and the majority of folks prefer the entertainment/drama instead, and that's fine, I guess I generally do too. But I realize it's really not fair in CBB that a team that proved it was better all year has to give a shot to a team that was blah all year, like why even play the season. Still, I love watching it.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't watch college football, just never got into it and the format of things is a big reason why. I think if you didn't go to one of those big time schools, it's much harder to get into. I loved watching Ron Dayne, but that was about the extent of my interest. Just watching him trample guys in that UCLA Rose Bowl was one of the best things I've ever seen as a fan.

 

There are just too many teams. It's that simple for me. In basketball, the large tournament works because you can pack the games in much more tightly. I don't watch regular season, just tune in for March and still have fun. I appreciate they finally went with a playoff in football, but it's still sort of presenting the same issue with the last teams out being controversial every year. As a casual observer, watching Alabama and George and Clemson go at it every year seems pretty boring too.

 

I think if they made the field about 12 teams that would remove a lot of the gray area. Your Boise States and UCFs get to dance and can't complain anymore. And it's highly unlikely the 13th and 14th bubble team are good enough to do anything in the playoff anyway.

 

If I had grown up with a 12 team playoff in NCAA the Badgers probably would have qualified a lot and I'd be a much bigger follower.

 

The Bowl system is just totally alienating for me. Just this big slop of random meaningless games. I guess some people love bowl season but I just never understood it. Totally anticlimactic and lame to me.

[tmwiese55]

Yup your last line nails it I think. They're stuck right now trying to appease both sides with the tourney and bowls. Eventually the band aid would need to be ripped off and end the bowl system completely. That's a big tradition though with lots of political and financial factors in it, it's not as easy as to just do it as some would think. Eventually I think it gets there but right now the powers are being pulled both ways and trying to appease both sides. It's not like they're dumb and don't realize everything folks are saying or know the arguments, their hands are tied though and like in everything change moves slowly.

 

Moreover, if you go out to say 16 teams. The final two teams are now playing 17 games, that's an issue to address. And if the solution is to eliminate one or two regular season games, well that's a big issue too. It's not as easy as snapping your fingers like people think.

[pacopete4]

The Bowl system is just totally alienating for me. Just this big slop of random meaningless games. I guess some people love bowl season but I just never understood it. Totally anticlimactic and lame to me.

 

Can't speak for all but I would say a good chunk of people that watch it is for something to do. I know I turn on a bowl game that I couldn't name a single player on either team just because it is the time of year where not much else is actually on TV.

[nate82]

I wonder if this would work? If you want to be considered for the National championship then you have to schedule 5 games against teams that were ranked in the top 25 in the previous season with 3 of those games at a minimum being out of conference games.

 

If you don't have 5 games scheduled you can't be considered for the championship game. Could be hard to fit this in schedule wise but it should help with determining a more consistent national championship. Could keep the 4 team playoffs also.

[MrTPlush]

But I realize it's really not fair in CBB that a team that proved it was better all year has to give a shot to a team that was blah all year, like why even play the season. Still, I love watching it.

 

I guess I find it a tad different when in college football you rarely, if ever, play other Top 5 or even Top 10 teams during the regular season. It isn't like in college basketball where we see all those Top 10 teams play each other constantly, especially out of conference. For instance Kansas will play Michigan State, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Villanova out of their conference for basketball. I can see after winning most of those games why someone would be a little annoyed they have to play garbage teams risking their chance at the title come March.

 

I think that is something the current system really doesn't appreciate therefor teams just load up their non conference slate with garbage and/or good, but not great teams. With the lack of games they play is that something they could effectively encourage to outweigh the risk of scheduling it and losing? Not sure.

 

I could see the argument for 6 teams as I don't really want to see 3 loss teams have a shot (which an 8 team bracket could cause, but I have no problem with 2 loss teams with a bunch of quality wins having a chance.

[tmwiese55]

Yup I see that point. They do not play, but like you mention at the end if one team has lost 2-3 games and another 0-1 well that's some good evidence there as to who 'earned' it so to speak. Say NW found a way to beat OSU or TX found a way to beat OU. Do they really deserve a shot? I know you can make the tough guy argument that "well Bama should just beat them". Yea, I know, but crap happens. Plus you have to remember these are 18-21 yr old kids playing for very low pay while risking injuries and long term physical and mental problems.

 

For Nates, that wouldn't work because schedules are done way in advance. They should make universal rules though. All conferences should go to 9 games, and all teams should play at least one game vs the other major conferences or ND/BYU. Then get two cupcakes to fill it out.

 

I think I'm at Plush's last point myself as long as the current conference alignments are in place. Go to 6 teams as a compromise, I think I laid that out a page or so back as well.